Skip to main content

on the path to enlightenment...

My (and others who I infected) reaction to playing around with erlang, scheme and common lisp, was frustration. Not because these languages are bad, but because they are so nice and fun to programm with! One could even argue, that this alone results in reduced development time and better programms, but while this is definitely true, it hides the fact, that the afore mentioned languages increase efficiency of sw development also by technical means. To provide evidence for this hypothesis is out of the scope of this document, please look for yourself, there's plenty of good material about common lisp, scheme and erlang on the web, there are even life lisp coding videos on google video!

I recently bought the new erlang book. It is great and I would recommend it without hesitation.
There are also great books online that I started reading: htdp and sicp.
Oh and not to forget to mention "little schemers" of wich the chapter about the Y-combinator is online ...(yeahh nice!)

Now, all I need to do is convince my boss to start using erlang or common lisp.

There is just no point in wasting my time with java (except for j2me!).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The purpose of the MOCK

In response to a much nicer blog entry, that can be found here . There are actually several distinct "tests" that make up usual unit tests, among them two that really do stand out: one kind of testing to test method flows, one to test some sort of computation. Mock objects are for the purpose of testing method flows. A method flow is a series of message transmissions to dependent objects. The control flow logic inside the method(the ifs and whiles) will alter the flow in repsonse to the parameters of the method call parameters passed by calling the method under test, depending on the state of the object that contains the method under test and the return values of the external method calls(aka responses to the messages sent). There should be one test method for every branch of an if statement, and usuale some sort of mock control objects in the mock framework will handle loop checking. BTW: I partly use message transmission instead of method invocation to include other kind...

Learning Haskell, functional music

As you might have realized, I started to learn Haskell. One of the most fun things to do in any programming language is creating some kind of audible side effects with a program. Already back in the days when I started programming, I always played around with audio when toying around with a new language. I have found a wonderful set of lecture slides about haskell and multimedia programming, called school of expression. Inspired by the slides about functional music I implemented a little song. Ahh ... and yes it is intended to sound slightly strange . I used the synthesis toolkit to transform the music to real noise, simply by piping skini message to std-out. I used this command line to achieve the results audible in the table: sven@hhi1214a:~/Mukke$ ghc -o test1 test1.hs && ./test1 | stk-demo Plucked -n 16 -or -ip Sound samples: Plucked play Clarinet play Whistle(attention very crazy!) play As always the source... stueck = anfang :+: mitte :+: ende anfang = groovy :+: (Trans ...

Erlang mock - erlymock

NOTE THIS POST IS OUTDATED! The project has evolved and can be found here: ErlyMock Some features Easy to use Design based on easymock Works together with otp: can be used even if the clut is called from another process, by invoking mock:verify_after_last_call(Mock,optional: timeout) custom return functions predefined return functions for returning values, receiving message, throwing exceptions, etc.. erlymock automatically purges all modules that were mocked, after verify() Custom argument matchers: %% Orderchecking types: in_order, out_of_order, stub; %% Answering: {return, ...}|{error, ...}|{throw, ...}|{exit, ...}|{rec_msg, Pid}|{function, Fun(Args) -> RetVal} expect(Mock, Type, Module, Function, Arguments, Answer = {AT, _}) when AT==return;AT==error;AT==throw;AT==exit;AT==rec_msg;AT==function -> call(Mock, {expect, Type, Module, Function, length(Arguments), {Arguments, Answer}}). %% this version of expect is suited for useing custom argument matchers expect(Mock, Type, ...